Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

AIBU - Nursery

331 replies

sk505 · 29/08/2017 18:36

My daughter is 16months and goes to nursery twice a week.
In our religion, girls' nappies are not changed by boys and girls must be dressed with dignity. nursery are aware of this.
Today, I went to fetch her and she was running around in just a nappy. No clothes at all. This was extremely upsetting as I know male members of staff walk through and around the nursery. I'm not making any personal comments or any judgements, but it is against our religion. It transpires that her clothes were all clean. Her spare clothes were available and she has been well behaved. No one knows why she was without clothes for over an hour.
AIBU to cause a storm over this,?

OP posts:
blacksax · 30/08/2017 20:41

Much has been said about patriarchal religions on this thread, and the imposition of rules on women and girls. A lot of posts have been deeply critical of the OP and she has been given a rather hard time.
Maybe, just maybe, she has been brought up to obey these rules herself, and actually has very little say in the matter for herself or her dd. She may be voluntarily choosing to follow the doctrine - she may not be allowed to have a choice. That isn't her fault and criticising her doesn't help her situation.

AnnMeredithPerkins · 30/08/2017 20:56

Much has been said about patriarchal religions on this thread, and the imposition of rules on women and girls. A lot of posts have been deeply critical of the OP and she has been given a rather hard time

well we have no way to balance what she is saying as she's not saying anything?!

there are also inconsistencies, where the OP said she was moving to Cambridge and now has a one 2 one nursery in central london....

emmyrose2000 · 31/08/2017 06:21

I wish people would stop pushing their crazy religious beliefs onto their tiny children. Let her be a baby!!! I hate people indoctrinating children into ANY faith. They are all as batshit as the each other

I agree, and will add that I wish people would stop pushing their crazy religious beliefs on anyone of any age.

RoseAndRose · 31/08/2017 07:24

"And until then, she can't ever swim in the sea or go to a pool party with her friends?"

I don't see why not- only torso and upper thighs were specified. Most boy-leg and all triathlon swimsuits would meet those criteria, as would tankini top and board shorts.

Aurao · 31/08/2017 07:39

Yes, it's fine to take this further OP.

We don't eat pork, if someone caring for my child fed my child pork, I'd be furious.

Aurao · 31/08/2017 07:40

""And until then, she can't ever swim in the sea or go to a pool party with her friends?""

Rubbish, board shorts and rashies do the job just fine and are actually safer for many children due to reducing skin cancer.

Aurao · 31/08/2017 07:42

"there are also inconsistencies, where the OP said she was moving to Cambridge and now has a one 2 one nursery in central london"

I know people who commute from Cambridge to London.

I also know people who were going to move out of London and then have stayed.

Why don't you stop troll hunting?

BumFlapBob · 31/08/2017 07:56

Op does not commute. Her previous threads spoke about her working in Cambridge.

QuinionsRainbow · 31/08/2017 10:52

And at the beginning of 2015 she was going to buy a house in Tunbridge Wells.

HidingBehindTheWallpaper · 31/08/2017 11:20

Just a thought but the op has said that she doesn't want to say the religion as it would be outing. This implies that she is not Muslim or Hindu as to say that wouldn't be that outing, certainly not in London.

This leads me to think that it is a super orthodox faith. Now I can't help but think that if this is a super orthodox misogynistic faith then they wouldn't like a mother working full time...........

skyzumarubble · 31/08/2017 11:34

I agree Hiding!

Italiangreyhound · 31/08/2017 11:42

Maybe the OP has simply changed the name of a location so as not to put herself.

It Doran't mean what she is saying is untrue, simply that she doesn't want people to know where she is.

Has the OP said these 'rules' are only for girls? I think not. If they are for both sexes is this definitely misogynistic? I don't think so.

I don't personally agree with head coverings etc for males or females but some reloguojday state modest dress for both sexes.

Poppyfields21 · 31/08/2017 12:36

She has actually said it is for girls in the original post:

"In our religion, girls' nappies are not changed by boys and girls must be dressed with dignity." So yes...misogynistic

Pigface1 · 31/08/2017 12:50

Showing my own ignorance here but I've genuinely never heard of a nursery with a 1:1 ratio!! That must cost an absolute bomb - surely a nanny would be cheaper??

Anyway OP given you must be paying a fortune and it sounds like you were pretty clear about your requirements I think you're entitled to be annoyed. Anyway, management are investigating so it'll presumably be resolved.

It does make me really sad that girls are being taught from such an early age that their bodies are shameful and should be covered, but shitloads of stuff that goes on that makes me sad.

Logans · 31/08/2017 15:09

@Poppy
And she also explicitly said later that the whole principle applied to boys equally. though I'm sceptical about this as I've yet to see a religion where it does

Logans · 31/08/2017 15:11

I also wonder about the 1:1 ratio. I wonder if the OP could be confusing a Keyworker for 1:1 care?

Italiangreyhound · 31/08/2017 15:14

Logans yes I thought that was the case.

If this is, as I suspect, around possible safety for children and not oppression for women in general - then it would apply equally to both sexes.

Italiangreyhound · 31/08/2017 15:17

Requiring women or men to cover their bodies does not necessarily mean that people think bodies are shameful. It might mean that but it also may not. It's quite simplistic to take requirements to be clothed beyond underwear to mean shame. I know that people think these two follow suit but not necessarily.

I cover parts of my bodily daily when outside in the world beyond my home, I'm not ashamed of them!

oblada · 31/08/2017 15:33

Sorry did not read the full thing but noted OP said she was not Muslim so thinking part of the Brethren community? Would be pretty outing to saw as quite small... Overall I would agree and say that although nursery should follow parents rules, on this occasion the rule does seem a bit overboard and in any event they don't know how it happened so it's just an accident really...things happen!!

oblada · 31/08/2017 15:35

God I can't type! Meant to say 'she may be part of the Brethren community' and then 'would be pretty outing to say'

Logans · 31/08/2017 19:33

I hope it's OK to comment on this as I'm pretty sure the OP isn't coming back, but I googled and I think if she was Bretheren there's no way that her child would be at a conventional nursery. As far as I can tell the church would absolutely never allow it, and they have a lot of control over their members, possibly even more so than Scientology. Most Bretheren seem to be home educated starting at quite a late age.

Logans · 31/08/2017 19:34

Also, I don't see how a nursery can follow her requests if they amount to workplace discrimination.

Italiangreyhound · 31/08/2017 23:30

Logan Brethren is a very wide ranging term which includes lots of different people and beliefs in a Christian context.

Logans · 01/09/2017 00:50

Italian

Yes, I saw that when looking, however I thought a trait of basically all Bretheren denominations was that they were very insular and extremely fundamentalist?? But perhaps I'm not correct.

intergalacticbrexitdisco · 01/09/2017 01:45

Indeed, Hiding.

I, too, wonder which religion adheres to these rules, whilst approving of women working full-time outside the home.